About

Mature Reasoning

There’s the Rub
Toxic
By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:20 am | Monday, November 26th, 2012I’m glad Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Walden Bello have introduced resolutions calling for the scrapping of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in the wake of Glenn Defense Marine Asia’s dumping of toxic waste on the waters of Subic Bay. It’s way past due. On the face of it, the connection between the two is merely tangential. After being accused of dumping untreated waste on the waters off the Bay, Glenn Defense, a US Navy contractor, said it could not be investigated, or castigated, by Philippine authorities as it fell under the umbrella of the VFA. And in any case, as retired admiral Mateo Mayuga, who has become their virtual spokesperson, argued: one, the waste wasn’t toxic at all, it had been pretreated before being unloaded; two, it was unloaded well beyond Philippine waters; and three, it had a permit to unload. Not so, SBMA authorities protested, and the Senate subsequently confirmed. One, the unloading in fact happened well within Philippine territory. Rear Admiral Luis Tuason Jr., Coast Guard officer in charge, pointed out that the dumping took place within the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), extending 370 kilometers, or 200 nautical miles, from the coast. Two, the unloaded waste was in fact toxic, the Glenn vessel having no treatment facilities on board, and the dumped waste proving on examination to have exceeded safety levels, threatening marine life. Three, Glenn Defense in fact never applied for a permit from the Coast Guard which, Tuason said, was mandatory for this. “The VFA has nothing to do with it,” said Loren Legarda, who has led the investigation and castigation of Glenn Defense in the Senate. Glenn Defense is a civilian company that made the sole and reckless decision to poison another country’s waters and for that needs to be made to pay, preferably through its teeth. I applaud all this, and am squarely behind the senators who want to go beyond protestation and bring this to litigation. The culprits must be punished. But I applaud Santiago and Bello even more for going beyond this and pushing the problem to its logical conclusion. In fact, the VFA has everything to do with it.

At the very least that is so because the VFA is merely an extension of the US bases and the US bases have a history of dumping toxic waste, nuclear or otherwise, on this country. On the country’s waters in the case of the naval base in Subic and on this country’s land in the case of the air base in Angeles. Why should Glenn Defense balk at doing the same thing? Indeed, why should Glenn Defense not imagine it is protected as well, at least by the same tradition of Philippine authorities looking the other way in matters that have to do with the US military? You think the US Navy doesn’t know that one of its waste disposers is disposing more than biodegradable s–t on this country? You think it cares? Far more than this, talk of toxic waste, the VFA, like the US bases before it, is a toxic waste unto itself. More toxic than anything Glenn Defense has dumped on Subic Bay, more toxic than anything dumped by the US Navy in our waters during the Vietnam War and after, and more toxic than anything buried underground by the American forces in Angeles as they retreated far more frenziedly, tail between legs, from the wrath of a mountain than from the Vietcong. The VFA should never have been there. It’s a betrayal of the rejection of the renewal of the bases treaty several years before, and it’s no small irony that the president who passed it was one of the 12 senators who shut down the bases. Who was of course Erap. It’s an even bigger irony that the one president who presided over the country without US bases and without the VFA was a former general who was the head of Marcos’ dreaded constabulary—one Fidel Ramos. And who went on to see the country through its salad days economically, politically and psychologically....

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿Types of ReasoningReasoning is the process of inferring conclusions from premises. The premises may be in the form of any of the various types of evidence; they may be stated as propositions; or they may be statements of conclusions reached through prior reasoning.
Thus advocates use the premises they have previously established or asserted, and by a process of reasoning, they try to establish something new—a conclusion they want their audience to accept. If the audience perceives the premises as well grounded and the reasoning as rhetorically sound, it will be likely to accept the conclusion.
I . THE DEGREE OF COGENCY
The degree of cogency is the extent to which an argument is both sound and intellectually compelling because it is well founded in fact, logic, or rationality.
(As we saw in Chapter 8, Toulmin used the term modal qualification to express this concept.) The degrees of cogency are certainty, probability, plausibility, or possibility. These may be thought of as existing on a continuum, represented by the following diagram.
These degrees of cogency are not discrete compartments; rather, they are terms used to suggest the relative compelling force of various logical proofs.
Absolute
truth
Certainty
....................Probability
....................Plausibility
....................Possibility.......................
A scintilla
of truth
Miniglossary
Analogy,...

...the components of strategic choice, the combination of resources and competence is most crucial to success. If we compare this pattern of decisions with the rational reasoning perspective it show remarkable similarities. To deal with strategic problems the strategist must first consciously and thoroughly analyze the problem situation. The organization must be appraised, to uncover its strengths and weaknesses and to establish which recourses are available. Once the problem has been defined, a number of alternative strategies can be identified by matching external opportunities to internal strengths. Then the strategic options must be extensively screened, by evaluating them on a number of criteria, such as: internal consistency, external consonance, competitive advantage, organizational feasibility, potential return and risks.
“The mind of the strategist” By Kenichi Ohmae.
Ohmae (1982) claims that the creative element in plans, and the drive and will of the mind gives strategies their extraordinary competitive impact. This way natural and instinctive thinking is dying out in favor of rational thinking. Today’s giant institutions are by and large not organized for innovation. Their systems and processes are all oriented toward incremental improvement. Ohmae [1982] engages differently in strategic reasoning than Andrews [1987] his message is that successful business strategies result not form rigorous analysis but from a particular state of...

...Intellectual Reasoning vs. Instinct
It has been said from Plato onward that man's reasoning is his highest faculty and makes him superior to animals. In the short story "To Build a Fire," by Jack London, man’s intellectual reasoning ability is regarded as “second class” to that of the survival mechanism that is embedded within humans and animals alike. This survival mechanism is sometimes referred to as instinct. If solely depended on, man’s intellectual reasoning may be clouded, imprudent and even detrimental, leading him to the wrong decision. Instinct, on the other hand, is a natural reaction pre-programmed into man for survival and cannot be altered by reasoning, making it superior to reason.
As the story opens, the man clearly understands that the “day had broken cold and gray, exceedingly cold and gray,” and still he insists on continuing his journey (650). The fact that the temperature is below freezing did not seem to bother him. He is ignorant of the cold. As he stands surveying the snow covered Yukon trail, “the mysterious, far-reaching hair-line trail, the absence of sun from the sky, the tremendous cold, and the strangeness and weirdness of it all—made no impression on him” (651). He is determined to join the boys at camp to enjoy the warmth, food, and companionship regardless of the weather.
The man is very observant about his surroundings, however, “he was without...

...Thinking and Clinical Reasoning
Elizabeth Ayers
Marshall University Graduate College
Critical Thinking and Clinical Reasoning
Clinical reasoning and critical thinking are both key items to nursing practice and occurs every day on the job. Both of these terms are necessary for nurses to utilize in their everyday practice. Without clinical reasoning and critical thinking nurses would no longer face any challenges and patients would have worsening outcomes. Thinking is a skill, just like music or tennis. It flows and changes depending on current conditions, and it requires gaining specific knowledge, skills, experience, and hands-on practice.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is your ability to focus your thinking to get the results you need in various situations makes the difference between whether you succeed or fail. Whether you need to set patient priorities, figure out how to collaborate with a difficult doctor, or develop a plan of care, critical thinking deliberate, informed thought is the key. The journey to developing critical thinking starts with having a good understanding of what it is.
Critical thinking involves a certain skepticism, or suspension of assent, towards a given statement, established norm or mode of doing things. This skepticism might ultimately give way to acceptance, but it does not take truth for granted. Instead, it considers alternative hypotheses and possibilities. (Daly,...

...﻿Part 2 – Moral Reasoning, Review Questions
Review Questions
1. What is the difference between persuasion and argument?
There are several differences between persuasion and argument. Persuasion is based on an individual’s opinion while an argument is based on presenting facts to support their position. Persuasion weighs heavily on emotions versus argument is very logic driven.
2. What is a deductive argument? An inductive argument?
A deductive argument is intended to be a guarantee that the conclusion is correct assuming that the premises are true. Inductive arguments imply that it is unlikely the that conclusion is false. Inductive is not absolute as a deductive argument.
3. What is a valid argument? A strong argument?
A valid argument is a deductive argument that is totally supported and achieves the intended result. A strong argument is an inductive argument that has a good probably of being true because it has good support.
4. What is the term designating a valid argument with true premises? A strong argument with true premises?
Sound
Cogent
5. Is the following argument form valid or invalid? Valid
If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.
6. Is the follow argument for valid or invalid? Valid
If p, then q.
If q, then r.
Therefore, if p, then r.
7. What is the counterexample method?
The counterexample method is testing the validity of an argument. You try to create a similar argument that has true premises and a...

...CTS Placement Paper January, 2010 (Reasoning Ability) REASONING section (20 Q's - 20 mins) Directions for Questions 1-4: In each questions below are given two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given two statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. read the conclusion and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements, disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer: (A) if only conclusion I follows; (B) if only conclusion II follows; (C) if either I or II follows; (D) if neither I nor II follows and (E) if both I and II follow. 1.Statements : Most clocks are fans, Some fans are walls Conclusions : I. Some walls are fans II. Some clocks are walls Ans: D 2. Statements : All birds are dogs, Some dogs are cats Conclusions : I. Some cats are not dogs II. All dogs are not birds Ans: D 3. Statements : Some fools are intelligent, Some intelligent are great Conclusions : I. Some fools are great II. All great are intelligent. Ans: D 4. Statements : All Men are married, Some men are educated Conclusions : I. Some married are educated II. Some educated are married. Ans: E Directions for Questions 5-6: In each questions below are given two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given two statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. read the conclusion...

...Mill's Inductive reasoning
Method of Agreement
Mill's method of agreement identifies a cause of an event in terms of its sufficient condition. When using this method, one searches for a single factor that is common to multiple situations in which the same event occurred.
Mill says that, when two or more occurrences of the event under investigation have only one condition in common, then that condition is the cause of the event. (Mill, 2002)
More simply stated, Mill's method of agreement eliminates all but one common precursor. Mill's method of agreement requires that in all cases where a consequence has occurred, the antecedent condition must be present. This method isolates the supposed origin by listing all of the possible factors that can be considered possible causes, then discovering the one factor common to all cases, (Mill, 2002). For example: Suppose that after work four people go to the local deli. After eating lunch, everyone becomes very sick. As they return to work, these people discuss what could have caused everyone to get so ill and everyone itemizes the items that were eaten: one had the fish special, drank water, hush puppies and coleslaw, and for desert, cherry pie.
Another one had a hamburger, French fries, coleslaw and a diet pepsi, and again, cherry pie for dessert. The third person only had the coleslaw and a diet pepsi. The last one had a hamburger, coleslaw, diet pepsi and cherry pie.
From this one could generate a chart...

...Types of Reasoning in Human Learning
A. Introduction
In human learning, generalization is crucially important and pervading strategy. Generalizing means that inferring or driving a law, rule, or conclusion, usually based on the observation of particular instances.
There are two types of reasoning which become important aspects in generalization process namely deductive and inductive reasoning. These types of reasoning are used either in language teaching or research. It is an interesting topic to be discussed because we can know how the people conclude the information that they have perceived.
B. Discussion
1. The Difference between Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
In the case of inductive reasoning, one stores a number of specific instances and induces a general law, rule or conclusion that governs a number of specific instances, while deductive reasoning is a movement from a generalization to specific instances: specific subsumed facts are inferred or deduced from a general principle (Brown, 1994:92. 1st Paragraph). In other words, inductive reasoning takes specific examples and makes general conclusion, while deductive reasoning starts out with a theory or general statement and then moving towards a specific conclusion.
2. Reflection Deductive and Inductive Reasoning in Language Teaching
Due to language teaching,...